Migraine treatment: quo vadis? Real-world data study (2015-2022) in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability, estimated to affect one-in-ten people in Spain. This study aimed to describe the management of migraine in Spain and identify improvement areas. METHODS: Non-interventional, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study conducted using an electronic medical records database covering visits to public healthcare providers for 3% of the Spanish population. Patients with a migraine diagnosis (ICD-9 346) between 01/2015 and 04/2022 were included, as well as their demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed migraine treatments and the specialty of the prescribing physicians. RESULTS: The database included 61,204 patients diagnosed with migraine. A migraine treatment had been prescribed to 50.6% of patients over the last 24 months (only acute to 69.5%, both acute and preventive to 24.2%, and only preventive to 6.3%). The most frequently prescribed treatments were NSAIDs (56.3%), triptans (44.1%) and analgesics (28.9%). Antidepressants were the most common preventive treatment (prescribed to 17.9% of all treated patients and 58.7% of those treated with a preventive medication), and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies the least prescribed (1.7%; 5.7%). In 13.4% of cases, preventive medications were the first treatment: alone in 5.8% of cases and together with an acute medication in 7.6%. A fifth of patients who were initially prescribed with only acute treatment were later prescribed a preventive medication (20.7%). On average, it took 29.4 months for this change to occur. Two-thirds of patients started their preventive treatment in primary care (64.2%). The percentage of patients treated by a neurologist increased with the number of received preventive medications. However, 28.8% of patients who had already been prescribed five or more distinct preventive treatments were not treated by a neurologist. Migraine patients had between 1.2- and 2.2-times higher prevalence of comorbidities than the general population, age-gender adjusted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the need for improved management of migraine in Spain to reduce the risk of chronification and improve patient outcomes. More training and coordination across healthcare professionals is necessary to recognize and address risk factors for migraine progression, including multiple associated comorbidities and several lines of treatment, and to provide personalized treatment plans that address the complex nature of the condition.

Dynamic fluctuations of salivary CGRP levels during migraine attacks: association with clinical variables and phenotypic characterization.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a complex neurological disorder with significant heterogeneity in its clinical presentation and molecular mechanisms. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has emerged as a key player in migraine pathophysiology, but challenges remain in its utilization as a biomarker. This study aimed to investigate salivary CGRP levels during migraine attacks across the frequency spectrum and explore associations with clinical variables. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal pilot study was conducted, recruiting migraine patients from an outpatient headache clinic. Salivary CGRP levels were measured at interictal, onset, post-2 h of onset and end-of-attack. Using generalized linear mixed models, we explored the effect of CGRP changes over the attack in presence of depressive symptoms (DS), acute attack treatment, and after three-months of erenumab treatment. Finally, patients were classified and compared according to their CGRP phenotype. RESULTS: A total of 44 migraine patients were included (90.9% women), with 80 migraine attacks analyzed. Salivary CGRP levels increased at the onset of migraine attacks. We observed statistically significant interactions between DS and both the linear (Est. [SE]: 19.4 [5.8], p = 0.001) and quadratic terms of time (-19.1 [6.0], p = 0.002). Additionally, a significant three-way interaction within the use of acute treated attack (linear-term: -18.5 [6.2], p = 0.005; quadratic-term: 19.2 [6.8], p = 0.005) was also found. Molecular phenotyping revealed that 72.7% (32/44) of patients presented only CGRP-dependent attacks, while 27.3% (12/44) presented non-CGRP-dependent migraine attacks. Patients with only CGRP-dependent attacks were associated with younger age, shorter disease evolution time, a higher proportion of aura, and fewer monthly headache days (p < 0.05). Exploratory analysis of erenumab treatment effects did not result in changes in CGRP levels during migraine attacks. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the dynamic nature of migraine at a molecular level and emphasizes the importance of integrating clinical variables, such as depressive symptoms, in understanding its pathophysiology. The identification of distinct migraine subtypes based on CGRP dependence suggests potential opportunities for personalized treatment approaches.

Migraine treatment consensus document of the Spanish Society of Neurology (SEN), Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (SEMFYC), Society of Primary Care Medicine (SEMERGEN) and Spanish Association of Migraine and Headache (AEMICE) on migraine treatment. / Documento de consenso de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (SEN), Sociedad Española de Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria (SEMFYC), Sociedad de Medicina de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN) y Asociación Española de Migraña y Cefalea (AEMICE) sobre el tratamiento de la migraña.

Migraine is a disease with a high prevalence and incidence, in addition to being highly disabling, causing a great impact on the patient's quality of life at a personal, family and work level, but also social, given its high expense due to its direct (care) and indirect (presenteeism and work absenteeism) costs. The multiple and recent developments in its pathophysiological knowledge and in its therapy require updating and, therefore, in this article the Spanish scientific societies most involved in its study and treatment (SEN, SEMFYC and SEMERGEN), together with the Association Spanish Association for Patients with Migraine and other Headaches (AEMICE), we have developed these updated care recommendations. We reviewed the treatment of migraine attacks, which consisted mainly of the use of NSAIDs and triptans, to which ditans and gepants have been added. We also discuss preventive treatment consisting of oral preventive drugs, botulinum toxin, and treatments that block the action of calcitonin-related peptide (CGRP). Finally, we emphasize that pharmacological treatments must be complementary to carrying out general measures consisting of identifying and managing/deletion the precipitating factors of the attacks and the chronicizing factors, controlling the comorbidities of migraine and eliminating analgesic overuse.

Eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine: a narrative review.

Eptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), was recently approved in Europe for the prophylactic treatment of migraine in adults who have at least four migraine days a month. Eptinezumab is administered by intravenous infusion every 12 weeks. During recent months, a considerable amount of evidence from eptinezumab trials has been published. The aim of this review is to describe the existing evidence on the tolerability, safety and efficacy of eptinezumab in patients with migraine. Data from randomized (PROMISE-1, PROMISE-2, RELIEF and DELIVER) and open-label (PREVAIL) phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated the favorable effect of eptinezumab in migraine symptoms from first day of treatment. These studies showed that eptinezumab results in an overall reduction in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs), increases in the ≥50% and ≥ 75% migraine responder rates (MRRs) and improvements in patient-reported outcome measures in both patients with episodic migraine (EM) and with chronic migraine (CM), including patients who failed previous preventive treatments. The RELIEF trial also showed that eptinezumab, within 2 h of administration, reduced headache pain, migraine-associated symptoms and acute medication use when administered during a migraine attack. Eptinezumab benefits manifested as early as day 1 after dosing and with the subsequent doses lasted up to at least 2 years. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by ≥2% of patients included upper respiratory tract infection and fatigue. Current evidence demonstrates that eptinezumab has a potent, fast-acting, sustained migraine preventive effect in patients with EM and CM. Eptinezumab has also shown to be well tolerated, supporting its use in the treatment of patients with migraine and inclusion in the current migraine therapeutic options.

Is erenumab an efficient alternative for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in Spain? Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of erenumab in Spain and other European countries is currently restricted because of the cost of this novel therapy to patients with migraine who have experienced previous failures to traditional preventive treatments. However, this reimbursement policy should be preferably based on cost-effectiveness studies, among other criteria. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine (EM) and versus placebo for chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System, was constructed based on data from responder and non-responder patients. A responder was defined as having a minimum 50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD). A hypothetical cohort of patients with EM with one or more prior preventive treatment failures and patients with CM with more than two treatment failures was considered. The effectiveness score was measured as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per migraine day (MD) avoided. Data from clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were obtained from erenumab clinical trials (NCT02066415, STRIVE, ARISE, LIBERTY and HER-MES). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: After a 10-year follow-up, the estimated QALYs were 5.88 and 6.11 for patients with EM treated with topiramate and erenumab, respectively. Erenumab showed an incremental cost per patient of €4,420 vs topiramate. For CM patients, erenumab resulted in 0.756 QALYs gained vs placebo; and an incremental cost of €1,814. Patients treated with erenumab achieved reductions in MD for both EM and CM (172 and 568 MDs, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY gained with erenumab was below the Spanish threshold of €30,000/QALY for both health and societal perspectives (EM €19,122/QALY and CM €2,398/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab is cost-effective versus topiramate as a preventive treatment for EM and versus placebo for patients with CM from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of pharmacological preventive treatment for persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Persistent headache attributed to traumatic injury to the head is divided into two subtypes, one attributed to moderate or severe traumatic injury and another attributed to mild traumatic injury (i.e., concussion). The latter is much more prevalent, in part because more than 90% of cases with traumatic brain injury are classified as mild. The pathophysiology of persistent post-traumatic headache is poorly understood and the underlying mechanisms are likely multifactorial. There is currently no approved treatment specifically for persistent post-traumatic headache, and management strategies rely on medications used for migraine or tension-type headache. Therefore, high-quality trials are urgently needed to support clinical decision-making and optimize management strategies. International guidelines can facilitate appropriate trial design and ensure the acquisition of high-quality data evaluating the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of available and novel pharmacological therapies for the preventive treatment of persistent post-traumatic headache. METHODS: The development of this guideline was based on a literature review of available studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, along with a review of previously published guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment for episodic and chronic migraine. The identified literature was critically appraised, and due to the scarcity of scientific evidence, recommendations were primarily based on the consensus of experts in the field. OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for designing state-of-the-art controlled clinical trials aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of preventive treatments for persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

Early Use of Erenumab vs Nonspecific Oral Migraine Preventives: The APPRAISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with migraine often cycle through multiple nonspecific preventive medications due to poor tolerability and/or inadequate efficacy leading to low adherence and increased disease burden. Objective: To compare the efficacy, tolerability, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction between erenumab and nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) who had previously failed 1 or 2 preventive treatments. Design, Setting, and Participants: The 12-month prospective, interventional, global, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sustained benefit of 2 treatment paradigms (erenumab qm vs oral prophylactics) in adult episodic migraine patients (APPRAISE) trial was a 12-month open-label, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 4 randomized clinical trial conducted from May 15, 2019, to October 1, 2021. This pragmatic trial was conducted at 84 centers across 17 countries. Overall, participants 18 years or older with a 12-month or longer history of migraine, and 4 or more but fewer than 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs) were included. Interventions: Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive erenumab or OMPMs. Dose adjustment was permitted (label dependent). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients completing 1 year of the initially assigned treatment and achieving a reduction of 50% or greater from baseline in MMDs at month 12. Secondary end points included the cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders according to the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment. Results: A total of 866 patients were screened, of whom 245 failed the screening and 621 completed the screening and baseline period. Of the 621 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [11.2] years; 545 female [87.8%]; 413 [66.5%] in the erenumab group; 208 [33.5%] in the OMPM group), 523 (84.2%) completed the treatment phase, and 98 (15.8%) discontinued the study. At month 12, significantly more patients assigned to erenumab vs OMPM achieved the primary end point (232 of 413 [56.2%] vs 35 of 208 [16.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% CI, 4.28-9.82; P <.001). Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab showed higher responder rate (314 of 413 [76.0%] vs 39 of 208 [18.8%]; OR, 13.75; 95% CI, 9.08-20.83; P <.001) on the PGIC scale (≥5 at month 12). Significant reduction in cumulative average MMDs was reported with erenumab treatment vs OMPM treatment (-4.32 vs -2.65; treatment difference [SE]: -1.67 [0.35] days; P < .001). Substantially fewer patients in the erenumab arm compared with the OMPM arm switched medication (9 of 413 [2.2%] vs 72 of 208 [34.6%]) and discontinued treatment due to adverse events (12 of 408 [2.9%] vs 48 of 206 [23.3%]). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that earlier use of erenumab in patients with EM who failed 1 or 2 previous preventive treatments provided greater and sustained efficacy, safety, and adherence than continuous OMPM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.

The state of art on the use of patient reported outcomes in migraine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to explore the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in migraine. Traditionally assessed through specific features, recent adoption of PROMs allows for a more objective and quantifiable evaluation. PROMs, which are standardized questionnaires collecting health information directly from a patients' perspective, cover various aspects, including migraine specific aspects. The review focuses on delineating the applications and interpretation of commonly used PROMs in migraine research, with an emphasis on their integration in clinical care. RECENT FINDINGS: Generic and migraine-specific PROMs play a crucial role in clinical research, particularly in assessing health-related quality of life, disability, impact, and associated comorbidities. Some of these measures are strongly recommended to be used by the International Guidelines and are, in fact, mandated by the FDA for product labeling. Recently, there has been an expansion in the use of PROMs to assess migraine in diverse populations, in particular pediatric patients. However, the application of these measures in clinical care shows considerable heterogeneity, and some have not been validated specifically for migraine. The existing multitude of PROMs, coupled with ongoing development of new ones to better capture patient concerns, creates complexity in their research and clinical application. To address these challenges, it becomes imperative to streamline their use, focusing on those that are more validated and better aligned with the patients' perspective including different populations' needs. SUMMARY: The utilization of PROMs in evaluating migraine enables a more holistic assessment, helps quantify the impact of the disease facilitating change measurement, improves communication between healthcare providers and patients and, guides treatment decisions for improved outcomes. However, the increasing number of PROMs questionnaires, underscores the importance of validating these tools for migraine and, the dynamic nature of the disease makes it relevant to decide with whom, why and when these should be used.

Safety and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults for whom conventional oral preventive treatments have failed (ELEVATE): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, has been approved for the preventive treatment of migraine, but its efficacy and safety in people who have been failed by conventional oral preventive migraine treatments has not yet been evaluated in a dedicated clinical trial. The ELEVATE trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in participants for whom two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments have failed. METHODS: ELEVATE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b trial done at 73 sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Adults (18-80 years) with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral treatments for migraine prevention were randomly assigned (1:1) using interactive web response technology to oral atogepant 60 mg once a day or placebo, stratified by baseline monthly migraine days, number of treatment classes participants have been failed by, and region. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days across the 12-week treatment period in the off-treatment hypothetical estimand (OTHE) population, which included participants in the safety population (all participants who received ≥1 dose of study intervention) who had evaluable data available for the baseline period and for one or more of the 4-week post-baseline periods (whether on treatment or off treatment). The primary endpoint was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures and a fixed-sequence procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04740827) and EudraCT (2019-003448-58), and is completed. FINDINGS: Between March 5, 2021, and Aug 4, 2022, 540 participants were screened, 315 were randomly assigned, and 313 participants (280 [89%] female, 33 [11%] male, and 300 [96%] White) received at least one dose of study intervention. In the OTHE population, which comprised 309 participants (155 assigned to placebo and 154 to atogepant), least squares mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days across 12 weeks were -1·9 (SE 0·4) with placebo and -4·2 (0·4) with atogepant (least squares mean difference -2·4, 95% CI -3·2 to -1·5; adjusted p<0·0001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with atogepant was constipation in 16 (10%) of 156 participants (vs four [3%] of 157 for placebo). Serious adverse events occurred in four [3%] of 156 participants in the atogepant group vs none in the placebo group, and treatment-emergent adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in three [2%] in the atogepant group vs two [1%] in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Atogepant 60 mg once a day was safe, well tolerated, and showed significant and clinically relevant reductions in mean monthly migraine days compared with placebo across 12 weeks in patients with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments. Atogepant might be an effective preventive treatment option for patients in this difficult-to-treat population. FUNDING: Allergan (now AbbVie).

Headaches and facial pain attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim was to provide insights to the characteristics of headache in the context of COVID-19 on behalf of the Headache Scientific Panel and the Neuro-COVID-19 Task Force of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). METHODS: Following the Delphi method the Task Force identified six relevant questions and then conducted a systematic literature review to provide evidence-based answers and suggest specific diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: No data for facial pain were identified in the literature search. (1) Headache incidence during acute COVID-19 varies considerably, with higher prevalence rates in prospective compared to retrospective studies (28.9%-74.6% vs. 6.5%-34.0%). (2) Acute COVID-19 headache is usually bilateral or holocranial and often moderate to severe with throbbing pain quality lasting 2-14 days after first signs of COVID-19; photo-phonophobia, nausea, anosmia and ageusia are common associated features; persistent headache shares similar clinical characteristics. (3) Acute COVID-19 headache is presumably caused by immune-mediated mechanisms that activate the trigeminovascular system. (4) Headache occurs in 13.3%-76.9% following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and occurs more often amongst women with a pre-existing primary headache; the risk of developing headache is higher with the adenoviral-vector-type vaccines than with other preparations. (5) Headache related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is mostly bilateral, and throbbing, pressing, jolting or stabbing. (6) No studies have been conducted investigating the underlying mechanism of headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. CONCLUSION: The results of this joint EAN/EHF initiative provide a framework for a better understanding of headache in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

Quantifying sensory thresholds along the migraine cycle: An exploratory longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: To date, a number of studies on migraine have cross-sectionally evaluated sensory sensitivity with aversion thresholds/scores along the migraine cycle, reporting a decreased tolerance to sensory stimuli in different sensory modalities. Our hypothesis was that patients with migraine would exhibit heightened sensitivity to sound, light, touch and smell on days where they reported greater headache intensity. METHODS: This is an exploratory, longitudinal study, carried out over the course of 27 days. Aversion thresholds or scores to sound, light, touch and smell were quantified in six patients with migraine (11.33 ± 6.53 headache days/month). RESULTS: Patients reported an increased sensitivity to light (padj = 0.0297), touch (padj = 0.0077), and smell (padj = 0.0201) on days with higher headache intensity. However, a greater sensitivity to sound on days with higher headache intensity was only reported when anxiety levels were high (padj = 1.4e-06). Interestingly, variable levels of tolerance to bothersome light over time can also influence the correlation between light sensitivity and headache intensity (padj = 1.4e-06). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present findings, future longitudinal studies evaluating sensory threshold changes along the migraine cycle in patients with migraine should account for the increased tolerance to bothersome light over time as well as the effect of anxiety on auditory sensitivity.

Early and annual projected savings from anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine prevention: a cost-benefit analysis in the working-age population.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is one of the main causes of disability worldwide. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have proven to be safe and efficacious as preventive migraine treatments. However, their use is restricted in many countries due to their apparently high cost. Cost-benefit studies are needed. OBJECTIVE: To study the cost-benefit of anti-CGRP MAbs in working-age patients with migraine. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of consecutive migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs (erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab) following National reimbursement policy in a specialized headache clinic. Migraine characteristics and the work impact scale (WPAI) were compared between baseline (M0) and after 3 (M3) and 6 months (M6) of treatment. Using WPAI and the municipal average hourly wage, we calculated indirect costs (absenteeism and presenteeism) at each time point. Direct costs (emergency visits, acute medication use) were also analysed. A cost-benefit study was performed considering the different costs and savings of treating with MAbs. Based on these data an annual projection was conducted. RESULTS: From 256 treated working-age patients, 148 were employed (89.2% women; mean age 48.0 ± 8.5 years), of which 41.2% (61/148) were responders (> 50% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD)). Statistically significant reductions between M0 and M3/M6 were found in absenteeism (p < 0.001) and presenteeism (p < 0.001). Average savings in indirect costs per patient at M3 were absenteeism 105.4 euros/month and presenteeism 394.3 euros/month, similar for M6. Considering the monthly cost of anti-CGRP MAbs, the cost-benefit analysis showed savings of 159.8 euros per patient at M3, with an annual projected savings of 639.2 euros/patient. Both responders and partial responders (30-50% reduction in MHD) presented a positive cost-benefit balance. The overall savings of the cohort at M3/M6 compensated the negative cost-benefit balance for non-responders (< 30% reduction in MHD). CONCLUSION: Anti-CGRP MAbs have a positive impact in the workforce significantly reducing absenteeism and presenteeism. In Spain, this benefit overcomes the expenses derived from their use already at 3 months and is potentially sustainable at longer term; also in patients who are only partial responders, prompting reconsideration of current reimbursement criteria and motivating the extension of similar cost-benefit studies in other countries.

Improvement of migraine depressive symptoms is not related to headache frequency: exploring the impact of anti-CGRP therapies.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to describe the prevalence and evolution of depressive symptoms in a cohort of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: This is an exploratory, prospective, unicentric, one-year longitudinal study. We included migraine patients who started treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Baseline demographic data, medical history, concomitant medication and migraine characteristics were collected. The presence of depressive symptoms was evaluated using the Beck Depression Inventory-II quarterly and treatment response was categorized according to the reduction in monthly headache days. A generalized mixed-effect regression model was used to model depression score over a one-year treatment taking into account frequency response rates. RESULTS: We included 577 patients: 84.2% females; median (range) age 47.0 (39.0-53.0) years, 46.1% (266/577) of them presented depressive symptoms at baseline (16.1% mild, 13.3% moderate and 16.6% severe). After six-month treatment, 47.4% (126/266) reduced headache frequency ≥50% after one year and 63.5% (169/266) achieved a clinically significant improvement in depression symptoms. We observed a 30.8% (-50.0%, -3.2%) main reduction in depression score during the first quarter. The improvement in depression symptoms was independently associated with headache frequency response: non-responders, -25.0% (-43.9%, -1.1%); partial responders, -30.2% (-51.3%, -7.6%); and good responders, -33.3% (-54.6%, -7.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP are effective in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with migraine. The main change of depression score happens during the first three months of treatment. The reduction in depressive symptoms is independent of migraine frequency improvement.

CGRP monoclonal antibodies and CGRP receptor antagonists (Gepants) in migraine prevention.

Migraine is a prevalent and disabling neurological disease. Its preventive treatment for decades has been rather limited due to the absence of disease-specific therapies with limited efficacy and tolerability. The advances made in migraine research have led to the discovery of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its role in migraine pathophysiology. CGRP is a neuropeptide that acts as potent vasodilator and is involved in pain processing. Increased levels of plasma CGRP have been observed during migraine attacks as well as interictally when comparing patients with migraine and healthy controls. In the last years, two classes of drugs antagonizing CGRP have therefore been developed as the first migraine-specific preventive treatments: anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and gepants. Four mAbs have been approved: erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and eptinezumab. Gepants are small molecules that antagonize the CGRP receptor; currently only rimegepant and atogepant have been approved for migraine prevention. These new drugs have demonstrated efficacy and safety in clinical trials for both episodic and chronic migraine, and results from their real-world experience are being increasingly reported in literature. In this review, we provide an overview of anti-CGRP drugs and their placement in migraine prevention.

Eptinezumab Demonstrated Efficacy Regardless of Prior Preventive Migraine Treatment Failure Type: Post Hoc Analyses of the DELIVER Study.

INTRODUCTION: In the DELIVER study, eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days (MMDs) more than placebo in patients with 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures. This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of eptinezumab across the 24-week placebo-controlled period of the DELIVER study in subgroups defined by prior treatment failure type. METHODS: DELIVER (NCT04418765) randomized adults with migraine to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo, administered intravenously every 12 weeks. Changes from baseline in MMDs and percentages of patients with ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in MMDs (≥ 50% migraine responder rates [MRRs]) were summarized in subgroups of patients defined by prior treatment failure type. Subgroups were not mutually exclusive and included patients for whom topiramate, beta blockers (metoprolol, propranolol), amitriptyline, and/or flunarizine had failed. RESULTS: Across Weeks 1-12 in all subgroups, patients treated with eptinezumab experienced greater reductions from baseline in MMDs than those receiving placebo (reductions ranged from 4.5-5.5 vs 1.6-2.4, respectively), with larger reductions over Weeks 13-24. Similarly, ≥ 50% MRRs were consistently higher with eptinezumab than placebo and increased following a second infusion. CONCLUSION: In all subgroups, regardless of prior preventive treatment failure type, eptinezumab demonstrated greater reductions in MMDs and higher MRRs compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765).

Efficacy and safety of eptinezumab in patients with chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: For some people with migraine, despite taking greater amounts of acute headache medication (AHM), they develop an increase in monthly headache days. This cycle of increasing headache days, and in turn AHM use, can lead to a secondary headache disorder called medication-overuse headache (MOH). Preventive medications can prevent migraine from occurring and reduce reliance on AHMs, thereby preventing the cycle of MOH. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab to prevent migraine/headache in a mainly Asian patient population with a dual diagnosis of chronic migraine and MOH. METHODS: SUNLIGHT was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Patients aged 18-75 years with ≥ 8 migraine days/month and a diagnosis of MOH were randomly allocated (1:1) to one of two treatment groups: eptinezumab 100 mg or placebo. Monthly migraine days (MMDs) were captured using a daily electronic diary; the change from baseline in the number of MMDs over Weeks 1-12 was the primary efficacy endpoint. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg (n = 93) or placebo (n = 100). Over Weeks 1-12, eptinezumab reduced mean MMDs more than placebo (difference between treatments was -1.2; p = 0.1484). Differences between treatment groups with p-values below 0.05 favoring eptinezumab were observed in 3 out of the 6 key secondary endpoints. CONCLUSION: All endpoints numerically favored eptinezumab treatment when compared to placebo; however, this study did not meet its primary endpoint and is therefore negative. No new safety signals were identified in this study, like previous reports that confirmed the safety and tolerability of eptinezumab treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04772742 (26/02/2021).

Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine: Interim analysis of the pan-European, prospective, observational, phase 4 PEARL study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing Pan-European Real Life (PEARL) phase 4 study is evaluating fremanezumab effectiveness and safety for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine. This interim analysis reports primary, secondary and exploratory endpoints from when 500 participants completed at least six months of treatment. METHODS: Adults with episodic migraine or chronic migraine maintaining daily headache diaries were enrolled upon initiation of fremanezumab. Primary endpoint: proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days during the six-month period after fremanezumab initiation. Secondary endpoints: mean change from baseline across months 1-12 in monthly migraine days, acute migraine medication use, and headache-related disability. Exploratory endpoint: mean change in headache severity from baseline across months 1-12. Safety was assessed through adverse events reported. RESULTS: Overall, 897 participants were enrolled and 574 included in the effectiveness analyses (episodic migraine, 25.8%; chronic migraine, 74.2%). Of participants with data available, 175/313 (55.9%) achieved ≥50% monthly migraine days reduction during the six-month period post-initiation. Across months 1-12, there were sustained reductions in mean monthly migraine days, acute medication use, disability scores, and headache severity. Few adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: PEARL interim results support the effectiveness and safety of fremanezumab for migraine prevention in a real-world population across several European countries.Trial registration: encepp.eu: EUPAS35111.

Migraine worsening after COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination: Are we facing a nocebo effect?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In clinical practice patients may report migraine worsening as a consequence of COVID-19 (either infection or vaccines), however, data in this area are lacking. We aimed to investigate the link between COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination with migraine worsening and its associated factors. METHODS: An online survey was sent to migraine patients followed up in a Spanish Headache Clinic, collecting demographic data, and information regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. We asked patients if they had noticed worsening of their migraine after these events and assessed concerns about infection, vaccination and migraine worsening. We also extracted data from participants' own electronic diaries (e-diaries), including 1-month data before and after their reported infection and/or vaccination. We compared participants who self-reported migraine worsening since infection or vaccination with those who did not. RESULTS: Of 550 participants, 44.9% (247/550) reported having had COVID-19 at least once and 83.3% (458/550) had been vaccinated. Sixty-one patients reported migraine worsening since COVID-19 and 52 since the vaccination. Among the risk factors for perceived migraine worsening in the two settings (infection and vaccination) was concern about migraine worsening itself (infection: odds ratio [OR] 2.498 [95% CI: 1.02-6.273], p = 0.046; vaccination: OR 17.3 [95% CI: confidence interval 5.3-68], p < 0.001). e-diary information was available for 136 of the 550 patients, 38.2% (52/136) for COVID-19 and 39.7% (54/136) for vaccination. We observed no significant difference in headache frequency 1 month before and after infection or vaccination, even when comparing patients with and without self-reported migraine worsening. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary data point to a negligible role of the infection and vaccination on migraine worsening and to the possible presence of a nocebo effect in these settings, as a remarkable proportion of patients had a clear perception of migraine worsening.